Godlessness and choice

[Ed1wolf]

What do you mean by the "mind" not being based on brain chemistry? If that were true, then why does a neurotrans mitter abnormality, like schizophrenia, cause disordered thinking, paranoid delusions, and auditory hallucinations? Why would a buildup of abnormal proteins in neurons cause memory loss and major changes in mood and personality as seen in Alzheimer's Disease?

Because the mind needs the brain to interact with the physical world, and if the brain malfunctions or is damaged, then the mind cannot interact with the physical world properly.

 

[jayem]

Because the mind needs the brain to interact with the physical world, and if the brain malfunctions or is damaged, then the mind cannot interact with the physical world properly.

That sounds to me like the mind is dependent on brain physiology.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because the mind needs the brain to interact with the physical world, and if the brain malfunctions or is damaged, then the mind cannot interact with the physical world properly.

Did I miss where you demonstrated that the "mind" is anything more than that fuzzy word we use to describe what the brain does? It seems you're playing loose and fast with definitions.

 

[anonymous person]

Dan Dennett and Quentin Smith are philosophers, not scientists. I asked for an example of a scientist who believes those things, namely a scientist who is educated in the relevant fields (i.e. cosmology, astrophysics, etc).

Vilenkin and Krauss. Krauss spent a whole book talking literally about Nothing!

Except you can't simply define a being into existence, you need to demonstrate it actually exists. Simply calling a concept in your head a necessary being and stopping there does nothing to prove your point.

The universe is evidence of this necessarily existing being. There is also other evidence too.

To reiterate, something exists necessarily. Either this entity is natural or not. There is good evidence that the cosmos does not exist necessarily.

I mean causally disconnected from spacetime as we know it in the present day. If a multiverse actually exists, it's not unlikely a separate place from the universe which we can't get to. That doesn't mean universes can't spawn from that place however. It just means that we can't get there, and it no longer influences what's in this universe.

Two fatal flaws render the multiverse hypothesis untenable. Wholly aside from the fact that there is no evidence for a multiverse, if our universe is just a localized region within a larger multiverse, we should be observing a much smaller universe. That what we observe contradicts this, dashes to pieces the notion that our universe is just one of many spactimes which at some point in the finite past, became disconnected from the multiverse.

Secondly Vilenkin who himself champions the notion of a multiverse, has shown in a theorem he worked on with Borde and Guth, that the multiverse itself cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have a beginning.

Thus, a cosmic beginning cannot be averted.

Now remember Dave, none of this will compel you to agree with me. What I am doing is explaining to you one of the reasons why I am not a naturalist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes, the Christian God exists,

Citation needed

the BB theory has pretty much proven that the universe is an effect and needs a cause.

No, actually... it hasn't. If the Big Bang theory is correct, cause and effect doesn't even apply.

And the characteristics of the universe such as that purposes exist in it and persons exist in it point to the cause being personal. And I have already provided evidence that the mind is primarily non-physical in a few earlier posts.

As your premises are flawed, none of this has any relevance to reality.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Vilenkin and Krauss. Krauss spent a whole book talking literally about Nothing!

I've read A Universe From Nothing. The "nothing" you are talking about is not what Krauss means. I suggest you read it to find out what the actual scientists think.

The universe is evidence of this necessarily existing being. There is also other evidence too.

To reiterate, something exists necessarily. Either this entity is natural or not. There is good evidence that the cosmos does not exist necessarily.

Asserting that this being you're trying to define into existence necessarily exists still doesn't provide a compelling case, nor the slightest shred of evidence.

Two fatal flaws render the multiverse hypothesis untenable. Wholly aside from the fact that there is no evidence for a multiverse, if our universe is just a localized region within a larger multiverse, we should be observing a much smaller universe. That what we observe contradicts this, dashes to pieces the notion that our universe is just one of many spactimes which at some point in the finite past, became disconnected from the multiverse.

Secondly Vilenkin who himself champions the notion of a multiverse, has shown in a theorem he worked on with Borde and Guth, that the multiverse itself cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have a beginning.

Thus, a cosmic beginning cannot be averted.

Now remember Dave, none of this will compel you to agree with me. What I am doing is explaining to you one of the reasons why I am not a naturalist.

Again, I suggest you read a book on the issue, like the one I suggested above. While the multiverse has not been demonstrated, there is indeed some evidence. Making specific claims about the nature of the multiverse however is senseless. If we can't even prove it exists, we can't possibly make pronouncements on how it works.

 

[anonymous person]

I've read A Universe From Nothing. The "nothing" you are talking about is not what Krauss means. I suggest you read it to find out what the actual scientists think.

His book is an attempt to redefine the word from being a universal negation i.e. no-thing, to some thing, i.e something from which a universe could be created. So ultimately he is not really talking about "nothing" after all, he is talking about something.

Asserting that this being you're trying to define into existence necessarily exists still doesn't provide a compelling case, nor the slightest shred of evidence.

I don't imagine it would be compelling for you. You seem to have your mind pretty well made up that naturalism is true, and anything which would show that it is not, you dismiss out of hand.

I find it ironic that naturalists who treat the multiverse as their explanatory ultimate, will often level the accusation towards others of believing things for which there is no evidence, when they themselves believe in this multiverse without there being any evidence for it. They reason that there must be a natural explanation for a cosmic beginning and so dismiss anything that might refute that notion. Such people are closed minded and generally very dogmatic about their beliefs. They also don't shy away from trying to convert others to their worldview. Sounds an awful lot like a religion to me. Seems we all have beliefs and we all have an explanatory ultimate. We can't all be right though. I say all of this to show you that these things really began to bother me when I sat and thought long and hard about them as an atheist. I came to a point where I could no longer lie to myself and hold people to a double standard. So I stopped reading what men like Krauss and Tyson wrote, and actually looked at the evidence itself. I suggest you do the same.

Again, I suggest you read a book on the issue, like the one I suggested above. While the multiverse has not been demonstrated, there is indeed some evidence. Making specific claims about the nature of the multiverse however is senseless. If we can't even prove it exists, we can't possibly make pronouncements on how it works.

Krauss has written nothing new. I am familiar with his work.

 

[Dave Ellis]

His book is an attempt to redefine the word from being a universal negation i.e. no-thing, to some thing, i.e something from which a universe could be created. So ultimately he is not really talking about "nothing" after all, he is talking about something.

He addresses this claim in his book, which you would know if you had read it.

Furthermore, even theists don't believe in a state of pure nothingness. If god existed eternally, then there was always something, namely god. So, since neither side believes there was ever pure nothingness lets move on.

I don't imagine it would be compelling for you. You seem to have your mind pretty well made up that naturalism is true, and anything which would show that it is not, you dismiss out of hand.

That's not the case. The evidence I have seen supports the idea of naturalism, however if I see evidence to the contrary, I will change my views.

However that evidence must stand up to honest scrutiny. If it can not, then the only intellectually honest thing to do is dismiss it until further evidence arises.

I find it ironic that naturalists who treat the multiverse as their explanatory ultimate, will often level the accusation towards others of believing things for which there is no evidence, when they themselves believe in this multiverse without there being any evidence for it. They reason that there must be a natural explanation for a cosmic beginning and so dismiss anything that might refute that notion. Such people are closed minded and generally very dogmatic about their beliefs. They also don't shy away from trying to convert others to their worldview. Sounds an awful lot like a religion to me. Seems we all have beliefs and we all have an explanatory ultimate. We can't all be right though. I say all of this to show you that these things really began to bother me when I sat and thought long and hard about them as an atheist. I came to a point where I could no longer lie to myself and hold people to a double standard. So I stopped reading what men like Krauss and Tyson wrote, and actually looked at the evidence itself. I suggest you do the same.

Krauss has written nothing new. I am familiar with his work.

I said flat out in my posts on this thread that the multiverse is hypothetical and not proven. The fact you are trying to argue that I believe in it the same way you believe in god is arguing dishonestly. I specifically made the effort to point out this is a hypothetical explanation, which may or may not be correct.

We don't know how the universe came about, that's the point. Until we do know, it's dishonest to claim knowledge of the actual explanation.

 

[anonymous person]

That's not the case. The evidence I have seen supports the idea of naturalism,

Oh really? What evidence might this be?

I said flat out in my posts on this thread that the multiverse is hypothetical and not proven. The fact you are trying to argue that I believe in it the same way you believe in god is arguing dishonestly. I specifically made the effort to point out this is a hypothetical explanation, which may or may not be correct.

But you believe there is evidence for naturalism. So you necessarily believe that the universe has always existed in one form or another, multiverse or not, for you yourself have said that both sides believe something has always existed. You obviously don't believe God has always existed, so you believe the cosmos has always existed the same way I believe God has always existed. The cosmos is your explanatory ultimate. Simply stating what you believe to be true is not arguing dishonestly.

Secondly, even if I were arguing dishonestly, that does nothing to show that the premises of my arguments are not true, or that they are not more plausible than their negations.

We don't know how the universe came about, that's the point. Until we do know, it's dishonest to claim knowledge of the actual explanation.

Obviously you do not know, nor will you ever know, if you equate knowledge with that which can be proven scientifically. Once again, in all of this, you are assuming that in order to know something, you must arrive at this knowledge via empirical means, but if the universe comes into being, then you cannot know the answer to how it does via empiricism. Science has limits. It is limited to the observable and repeatable. It is limited to the empirical, therefore it follows that if you are waiting for a scientific explanation of how the universe came into being before you can say you know how it came to be, then you will never have an answer, for such an answer cannot exist.

At the very least, I think you can feel safe with acknowledging this basic limitation of science. Such a limitation is inherent in science by virtue of what science itself is.

In addition, I know how the universe came about, it came about as the result of a supernatural being creating it. Claiming such is not dishonest on my part, I am simply stating a fact, for I do not limit myself to only one type of knowledge. I am not an empiricist or an adherent of scientism.

 

[Ed1wolf]

That sounds to me like the mind is dependent on brain physiology.

It is, but the mind itself is non-physical.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Well I just presented some evidence that it is not entirely physical, because it can reason logically.

hs: No, you didn't. You stated your opinion.

Yes, I did the evidence is that we can reason using the laws of logic and we know that biochemistry only operates by the laws of physics. These are two very different things.
↑

ed: Also, your personal identity remains the same thru time.

hs:Assuming you haven't had a TBI, then yes.
↑
ed: Almost all cells in your body are replaced every seven years but you are still you.

hs: Yes, this known as apoptosis, and seven years is an average.
↑
ed: If you replace almost all the parts of a purely physical entity, it is no longer what it was.

hs: Unless, of course, brain cells and nerve tissue are not replaced, which they're not.

Actually some of them are though not all but the rest of the body is completely replaced, and if any large majority of cells are replaced then you have the problem of the table analogy as stated below.
↑

hs: For example if you replace every part of a table except one leg, it is no longer the same table.
↑
ed: In addition, NDEs are evidence that the mind is not entirely tied to the physical.

hs: You have proof NDE's are anything more than a brain being deprived of oxygen?

Yes, studies of different cases have found where people have obtained knowledge that would have been impossible for them to acquire. Such as one case where a woman had an out of body experience and saw a shoe on the roof of the hospital and described it when she became conscious again and they went on the roof and found the shoe matching her description. There are many such cases confirmed by well respected doctors.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What evidence?

See my earlier post about the BB and causality and purpose.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Did I miss where you demonstrated that the "mind" is anything more than that fuzzy word we use to describe what the brain does? It seems you're playing loose and fast with definitions.

The brain operates according to the laws of physics, the mind can operate according to the laws of logic. So it is unlikely that the mind is totally bound to the brain. See my post about an NDE where the person obtained knowledge that would have been impossible to know if her mind was not actually out of her body and brain.

 

[jayem]

It is, but the mind itself is non-physical.

Mind is just a term for what the brain does. It's like digestion is what the GI tract does. Digestion doesn't exist without a gastrointestinal system. Mind doesn't exist without a brain. You can believe whatever you like. But the brain, just like the stomach and intestines, works by purely natural physiologic processes. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about it.

 

[quatona]

It is, but the mind itself is non-physical.

Mind is a process. Like walking, for example.

 

[anonymous person]

Mind is just a term for what the brain does. It's like digestion is what the GI tract does. Digestion doesn't exist without a gastrointestinal system. Mind doesn't exist without a brain. You can believe whatever you like. But the brain, just like the stomach and intestines, works by purely natural physiologic processes. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about it.

The two words you used above, that I emphasized using the bold function, are terms that are indicative of your presupposition that naturalism is true. These are not scientific statements at all, but are statements about what ultimately is or is not the case.

All you are doing is simply begging the question that naturalism is true. You have given no reasons or arguments whatsoever to think that what you say is true.

 

[anonymous person]

Mind is a process. Like walking, for example.

Why do you think that mind cannot exist apart from a brain, or that as you state it, nothing more than a process which is dependent upon a brain?

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, studies of different cases have found where people have obtained knowledge that would have been impossible for them to acquire. Such as one case where a woman had an out of body experience and saw a shoe on the roof of the hospital and described it when she became conscious again and they went on the roof and found the shoe matching her description. There are many such cases confirmed by well respected doctors.

Sorry, these anecdotal stories are for the gullible. Carry on.

 

[HitchSlap]

The brain operates according to the laws of physics, the mind can operate according to the laws of logic. So it is unlikely that the mind is totally bound to the brain. See my post about an NDE where the person obtained knowledge that would have been impossible to know if her mind was not actually out of her body and brain.

LOL

 

[jayem]

All you are doing is simply begging the question that naturalism is true. You have given no reasons or arguments whatsoever to think that what you say is true.

As I recall, no reason was ever given for why anything called "mind" exists independently of the brain.

I know there are many things we don't understand, but I see no reason to believe supernatural phenomena are valid. They've always been invoked in the past, but have always yielded to natural explanations. The entire history of knowledge is one of a steadily diminishing role for the supernatural. I'm sure we'll never know everything. Understanding the universe is a journey, not a destination. There will always be supernatural speculation to fill the gaps. But I know it will continue to shrink as our knowledge grows.

We have different world views. You think a supernatural explanation fits what we do know. I'm no expert in cosmology, but from what I've read, there are natural explanations that are far better. You have a supernatural bias. I have a naturalistic bias. But we can still be friends.